How good was Dempsey's title reign?

...... says the man with the biggest and most advanced case of "legendary boxer fixation" on this forum, and elsewhere.

 

These Dempsey debates are brilliant because they never seem to end, and therefore provide an ongoing excuse to discuss one of the greatest fighters, pound-for-pound, of all-time.

However, there are other great fighters who probably deserve just as much attention.
Far from being a "fanboy" or a "fan of boxer, not of boxing", or someone with some invested emotional interest in his reputation, my only real connection with Dempsey is through an appreciation of THE GREATEST BOXERS EVER, of which Dempsey was most certainly one.
It's only in the minds of the revisionists who want to expel certain "old-time" fighters from the canon of the greats, and in particular Dempsey, that defending Dempsey's legacy automatically becomes "fanaticism".

There seems to be a circle of modern internet using boxing history enthusiasts, who for some unknown reason see themselves as some new breed of Uber-historian, to the point where they can dismiss almost everything passed down by the eyewitnesses and insiders of the historical period they are discussing - unless, of course, they find facts and opinions which suit their agenda or worldview.

Presenting facts is all well and good, but selecting only those facts that back up the revisionist agenda, and ignoring the entire historical context, doesn't impress me.
I admire some of the efforts put forth though.




On top of that, there's a heavy thread of sanctimonious twaddle being applied unevenly to one particular fighter, with some naïve or misguided standard of what is normal in the history of professional boxing.

YES, Dempsey sat on his title making money in movies, and fighting far less than he should have. In spite of defending against some good fighters, he failed to meet Harry Wills and Harry Greb, who were top contenders throughout his reign. This isn't good, it's bad. His title reign was one of inactivity, it was somewhat unsatisfactory reign for such a great fighter .
But it wasn't some outrageous crime, or fraud, or the death of sportsmanship, or completely unprecedented scenario, or reason for some internet geeks to get on their high horse about.

But that's just my opinion.

 

your saying here in your opening paragraph that the poll "on this forum" is a true reflection of Dempsey's place in history and that the 1950 A P Poll along with the 1962 Ring Magazine polls which polled boxing historians are wrong and should play 2nd fiddle to the Forum poll.. your trying to insinuate that all those Historians whom many actually seen Dempsey in the flesh from ringside as well as seeing Louis, Marciano, Liston, Patterson, Charles, Walcott, Greb, Wills and many more that thay are all wrong and you are correct. Ray Arcel is Wrong, Whitey Bernstein is Wrong, Gene Tunney & Jack Sharkey are wrong and you klompton & JAB the Tommy Morrison fan are all correct... of all the posts you three have made on this subject none of you have put forward any case whatsoever only your own assumptions... That 1950 A P Poll does not have Harry Greb or Harry Wills in it and the reason they are not in it is because to those Boxing Historians they was not thought of as fighters equal or better than what Jack Dempsey was..Dempsey received more votes than all the other fighters in the poll put together.. Gene Tunney who was interviewd at ringside in 1978 at the Holmes v Norton fight said"Dempsey would have knocked them both out".. Ray Arcel who trained Roberto Duran to beat Ray Leonard in The Brawl in Montreal said "Dempsey was the greatest fighter who ever lived"...are they all wrong and you are right?

 

excellent post of which i am of the exact same opinion... what i can only put this "SEE THEMSELVES AS SOME NEW BREED OF UBER-HISTORIAN" down to is the new books written in the last few years by young writers who have no afinity to boxing whatsoever yet are writing autobiography's of the great old-timer fighters from the early part of the last century and going completely against the books which was written at the time of those fighters actually fighting.. these modern autobiography's are myth that gives todays young readers a false sense power where they can come onto internet forums and ridicule & trash the legacy of some of the greatest fighters who ever lived... i have asked McGrain, klompton & JAB several times in this thread "Are those Historians who voted in the 1950 A P Poll & 1962 Ring Magazine Poll wrong"... not once have they addressed my question.

 

pull the other one and this from the man who claims Dempsey, Frazier, Marciano & Tunney are not Top 10 fighters but Tommy Morrison is up there with the greats of the sport

 

U, I'll go even further...There are now rumors that Jack Dempsey didn't even exist !!! WOW...
U, like an elephant in the room,some posters completely IGNORE any mention of the two polls taken in the 1950s and 1960s,calling Jack Dempsey "the greatest fighter til then". Not once do they address this fact. Either they truly believe that they 85 darn years later,somehow in their infinite wisdom ,know more than several hundred boxing experts who were polled and SAW Dempsey and his contemporaries fight, or they refuse to believe what they read...I, on the other hand have never seen, Sam Langford fight, never seen
Joe Gans fight, never seen Barbados Joe walcott fight, never even heard Daniel Webster orate, but must take the words of the majority of witnesses who have seen them....So with Jack Dempsey's fighting prowess,and place in fistic history...Take care U:hi:

 

well said Burt...

 

What is it that the modern revisionists have access to that those in the mentioned 1950s and 1960s polls didn't?

It sure as hell isn't seeing Greb in action or a peak Wills. :bbb

 

Thats funny. I love how you whittle down seven years into 2. Yeah lets compare records and just ignore Dempsey being inactive for 6 full years of a seven year reign and in so doing ignore the activity of Wills. "Lets compare records" and then you FAIL to post any of Wills' fights during Dempsey's inactivity. But thats not how it works is it? Furthermore, Wills did not lose to Sharkey until AFTER Dempsey lost to Tunney. So, no, that doesnt wipe out the previous three years of his contendor status, nor should it. You dont apply loses retroactively and say "oh he lost this year so the last three years dont count." But it doesnt really work like that does it? And no, as has been shown Wills DQ loss to Tate did not hurt his standing in the least as less then two months later he was fight Kid Norfolk (who Dempsey refused to even spar with) in a title eliminator and destroying. You also ignore that Wills was being heavily touted as Dempsey's logical contender within days of winning the title. So yes, from July 1919 until September 1926, over 7 years, Dempsey ducked Wills. You can say over and over he signed to fight Wills or had the intention of fighting him, but the fact is that he didnt, it was his choice not to, and signing a piece of paper written by your friends with loopholes for you to get out of it is about as meaningless an act as I can think of.

 

Microfilm and the motivation to use it...

 

What is available on microfilm that trumps what the boxing insiders, writers, fighters, experts of the 1920s - 50s had access to ?

 

Why is it that Dempsey signing a piece of paper to fight Wills is meaningless but every report of promoters making an "offer" for Dempsey to fight Greb is somehow PROOF of something definite ?

Why does the skepticism only get applied in Dempsey's direction ?